linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/13] iscsi-target: Add CHAP Authentication support using libcrypto

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4E2DC486.8080701@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 25 Jul 2011 12:31:18 -0700
From:	Andy Grover <agrover@...hat.com>
To:	"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
CC:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	target-devel <target-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
	Roland Dreier <roland@...estorage.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/13] iscsi-target: Add CHAP Authentication support	using
 libcrypto

On 07/23/2011 09:41 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> While I apperciate Mike's input here, I'll leave the final word to Andy
> and Christoph who have been primarly driving iscsi-target v4.1
> development and are the guys who have their fingers deepest in the code.

I appreciate that, but hch and I have been working on cleaning up the
main datapath; I personally haven't needed to familiarize myself with
the auth code at all so far. That said, I happen to think you are
correct, and am in favor of accepting the code as is, with in-kernel
auth. I wasn't 100% sure from reading Mike's response but it sounded
like he was saying he'd be ok with in-kernel auth since it would make
handling hw iscsi targets easier.

(BTW I think the arguments about backwards compatibility with existing
rtslib or pre-kernel-acceptance versions are not persuasive and a
distraction from the real technical discussion. Linux has a very strong
stable-user-api tenet, but we should commit to support stable APIs that
are reviewed and accepted in the kernel, and not be limited by
compatibility with prior out-of-kernel versions.)

> But all that said, there is still one person who has the real final word
> here, and he's made it clear how he feels about this type of kernel/user
> split.

Well that's great and all - I would just emphasize we're all going to be
working on this code cooperatively for a long time to come. More time
spent discussing technical issues to where we can all reach a grumbling
consensus will ultimately bear more fruit than appeals to the Hierarchy.

Regards -- Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/